Talk:Frances Townsend

Untitled

Frances Fragos Townsend, career criminal prosecutor and homeland security advisor to President Bush has been named by the White House to head its investigation into accountability for federal response to Hurricane Katrina. (Reuters 9/20/05)

This woman should be head of Homeland Security! Hell, I'd vote for her if she ever ran for president.:-)

The woman is clearly a ladder climber and definitely NOT a career criminal prosecutor -- IIF you carefully read her bio, you will notice she is a career bureaucrat and administrator, i.e. a policy wonk.

Without an objective explanation of "apologist", that is non-neutral nanguage. Hcberkowitz 23:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

She's one smart woman for sure! Hell I wish she'd run for president!:-)

I don't call a person who went on two major Sunday morning talk shows calling bin Laden "impotent" a very smart person. Bin Laden remains one America's worst enemies. Calling him impotent is akin to sticking your head in the sand and pretending the problem does not exist. It is bothersome that nearly six years after 9/11 our top homeland security officials have apparently become complacent. Bin Laden is not impotent because he lives in a cave. He lives in a cave because it promotes a mystique that stokes the fire of so many Muslims who would prefer a world without Western culture and ideals. It is troubling that this woman has the ear of the President.Odiesgr8 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bin Laden is impotent in the manner that he does not have the full command of Al Qaida anymore. Its been more or less franchised out which if of course a danger in itself. I don't think even catching UBL at this point would lessen the terror danger let along eliminate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChevyNazi (talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What's so impressive about her? She seems like a pretty run of the mill, ambitious but not very exceptional person. I get the feeling that because she's an attractive woman who's not stupid people want to compliment her. There are plenty of smarter harder working women to compliment. You just won't see them working with George Bush. 99.233.27.82 (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Jordan

Who succeeded her?

Shouldn't the article state who succeeded her in her position? Or has it not been filled yet? Badagnani 17:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Frances Townsend & WP:BLP

• Written to User talk:Chris Chittleborough

Hello. Unfortunately, my inquiry has to take you back to Dec 2007 but before doing so let me briefly describe my related experience in the very present. Few minutes ago I listened to former homeland security adviser Frances Townsend live on C-SPAN. Having never heard her speak, I was intrigued by her appearance and variability of genuine security-related topics of her talk. Naturally, I looked her up in Wikipedia and found an interesting entry regarding her handwritten 2007 resignation letter to President Bush. I found the two year old letter to be consistent with her talk on C-SPAN with respect to the character of a public official.

Anyway, the letter entry in the article was followed by a criticism from Harper's Magazine which you removed on the basis of it being a "slur". While I agree that the Harper's quotation contains words that are not accurate and are exaggerated, for example, "sycophant" (a word that uses the word "servile" as part of its definition) to describe Townsend and "erstwhile master" to describe her relationship with President Bush, the quotation does come from an organization that is considered to be a reliable source. Further, the word "slur" is not in WP:BLP.

So I was wondering if you would like to revisit your 10 December 2007 revert [1] by commenting further on exactly what part of WP:BLP or any other WP addresses Harper's attack (clearly an attack) on Ms. Townsend but which also sheds light into the character of this former public official.

Thanks for any consideration. Henry Delforn (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Henry Delforn (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention in Playboy Article

She's mentioned in page four of a Playboy article about a major CIA scam:

Despite such skepticism, the information found its way to the top of the U.S. government. Frances Townsend, a Homeland Security advisor to President George W. Bush, chaired daily meetings to address the crisis. She now admits that the bar codes sounded far-fetched.

This is probably not a notable enough mention to include in the article, but I'll let others decide.

Anyway, so what the fuck did she resign for anyway?

--Chaim The Bipolar (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Frances Fragos Townsend looks like she's starving.

Regardless of how accomplished a talking head Frances Fragos Townsend may or may not be she appears anorexic. This is no small thing when one is the mother of daughters nowadays. What are we saying to young women? To be successful one must starve oneself? It's an unhealthy message. Let's join the 21st century and judge a woman's worthiness to be on television or succeed in any other career by the same standards as men- is she smart, capable, credible, hard-working, and healthy? 66.57.51.141 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, but this message miscontrues the nature of WP Talk. If you can suggest a different, available image to use it can be substituted. If your observation is in accord with published sources discussing this matter, it may be included in the article. But there is nothing actionable about the impact and associations that an image brings to mind of editors, however correct and societally useful it might be. The encyclopedia reports the most important published perspectives of others. (Not our own.) Le Prof 73.211.138.148 (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

MEK and contention of material support for terrorism

Is it really controversial whether she supported the MEK or whether the MEK is officially designated as a terrorist group? No. These facts are quite clear. The only controversy is about whether there will be any consequences. This article is overtly biased to go easy on a prominent public official. 64.218.40.34 (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a fine perfect, editorial perspective. Provide a reputable published source expressing it, and it can be considered for inclusion in the article. (Our opinions on the matter are not destined to be encyclopedic content, unless published elsewhere, and even then, brought to the article by someone other than the author.) 73.211.138.148 (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There has been some debate on whether this section should be kept, mostly with User:Gouncbeatduke, and User:Plot Spoiler I don't think the salon is a reliable source, but I might be wrong. Let's discuss this. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Salon is relaible, insofar as when Greenwald at Salon discusses something, it does not make it true, but it makes it a notable report. So, section retained, but subsumed as a subsection of Career, its content corrected and clarified—its earlier attribution of the description of the case's impact was from Blitzer, not Townsend—and a tag regarding scope was placed. (See below.) Le Prof 73.211.138.148 (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

...service in the United States Coast Guard as Assistant Commandant for Intelligence...

I would like to know if she enlisted or received a commission and achieved what RANK or was she a civilian employee who worked FOR the USCG and did not SERVE IN the USCG. Meyerj (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you suggest a course of research/search to answer this question? Perhaps call for an expert, from the military side? Cheers 73.211.138.148 (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Career section lopsided in coverage

This section lends undue weight to the subsection covering the Greenwald article (which, earlier, was even more prominent, as a whole section devoted to the one Salon piece by this columnist). With regard to volume of content of this subsection—arising from a single published perspective from this columnist, about one circumstance in her career—it is far too expansive, relative to the presentation of the entire rest of the subject's career.

Please help to create a more balanced presentation, and discuss and resolve the matter here (as the tag states), before removing the tag: This one Greenwald column does not deserve this amount of space. (It currently stands at 40% of the text content on her career—more if the Notes are included—for this one circumstance and column.) Either this subsection needs be shortened, or the rest of section content on career needs to be expanded considerably. Le Prof 73.211.138.148 (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@73.211.138.148: I've added some detail to the career section and removed the tag. I plan to continue adding detail and restructuring, so the Greenwald bit can hopefully be more proportional, tucked into a subsection. gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)